8 ms·

I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or

I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Xerox or Canon (or whoever) probably makes copiers that ICE uses to make copies. Lenovo or Apple probably makes hardware that they use also to further their functions. Ford/GM probably supply ICE with vehicles. Farmers grow crops that get into their the meals that ICE personnel eat. Pilots and flight attendants probably have knowingly transported ICE employees. Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Why is ICE the only company that they object to? Why do some causes get their favor and not others? Where do we start? Where do we stop?

tomschlick 7y ago
> Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Why is ICE the only company that they object to? Why do some causes get their favor and not others? Wokeness and the recent trend of trying to cancel anything that doesn't align within a narrow spectrum of progressive viewpoints is a big reason here.
- si1entstill 7y ago
  I'm sure these people have varying viewpoints across the spectrum on a variety of issues, but this is a direct contract with a client that currently has a large target on it's back. These employees agree they would prefer not to be a partner. Saying all of those who petitioned share a narrow viewpoint is reductive.
- KyeRussell 7y ago
  "ICE is currently doing some bad things" is a viewpoint shared by a pretty large group of people. Honestly it just sounds like you're projecting.
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    ICE is getting raked over the coals in the court of public opinion because they don't have the funding nor the manpower to deal with 100k people coming over the border each month. Many asylum seekers are just exploiting the asylum system with invalid cases as economic migrants to delay the process so they don't get sent back home. All the while congress hasn't done much at all to fix the obvious problems in the law (some of which lead to family separation in detainment), nor do reasonable things like give a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers. Simply saying they are doing bad things is reducing the problems to a soundbite.
    - KyeRussell 7y ago
      K.
      - tomschlick 7y ago
        Glad to see reasonable discussion is still alive and well on HN. /s
        p1necone 7y ago
        The current US government is blatantly and overtly criminal, it seems reasonable to me to assume anyone arguing in their favor is arguing in bad faith and disengage.
        tomschlick 7y ago
        > it seems reasonable to me to assume anyone arguing in their favor is arguing in bad faith and disengage. I'm not arguing in their favor. I would like nothing more than for us to have strong border control and a functional immigration system that isn't overloaded with false asylum claims so that the real ones can get through. We definitely need to overhaul things like the H1B programs as well. My argument here is that no country's immigration system could handle this type of steady influx of 100k+ people per month [1] exploiting the asylum claims. Many of which only claim such after they illegally cross (yes i know you can technically claim whenever, but that's mighty convenient after crossing illegally). The systems were not built for this kind of thing. Basically under current law you have the choice to detain people until their asylum case is heard or release them on their own recognizance inside the country and hope they return for court. The family separation thing has happened because of a court ruling saying that kids and adults couldn't be detained together because of abuse concerns. If the same thing happened to Canada their systems would be in shambles just like ours. There needs to be a mixture of border security and fixes to immigration law to remedy this problem but none of that can happen while Congress sits on it's hands playing politics. [1] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The specific concerns may be new, but the general tactics are neither new, nor specific to progressives; in fact, while the labor movement has had some notable successes with it, the general approach has been most extensively deployed in this country by, and still is extensively used by, conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, against policies, institutions, art, personages, etc., they disapprove of. They call it “cancel culture” when it is their ox getting gored, but it is not as if no one told them what the harvest is like when you sow the wind...
- p1necone 7y ago
  > "narrow spectrum of progressive viewpoints" Oh fuck off, the way the US government is currently treating asylum seekers and immigrants is horrifying. Only within the bubble of American politics could someone brush complaining about it off like that.
  - shaftoe 7y ago
    These aren't people fleeing genocide. These are people leaving Mexico. And they're being put in hotels and buses. It's easy to pretend you're fellow Americans are monsters, but they're not.
    - zer00eyz 7y ago
      Hotels? If you call jail (on a good day) a hotel then I have a bridge to sell you. And yes we put them on busses to get them back because it is cheeper than flying them. > These aren't people fleeing genocide. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/mexico-travel-advisory.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/... You as an American should not go there, but them fleeing here is problematic?
      - tomschlick 7y ago
        Crime != genocide. And asylum cases require specific threats to your life not just "it's not nice there and I want to come to the US". https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-who-32298.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-st...
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > These aren't people fleeing genocide. These are people leaving Mexico. No, they are people fleeing violence in Central America through Mexico, in large part. That violence, incidentally, is in substantial part resulting from the US training nonviolent drug war criminals into extremely violent criminals in its original and then deporting then to Central America what they have no substantial roots.
- Ar-Curunir 7y ago
  This is a garbage opinion. Opposing concentration camps is not a "narrow progressive viewpoint"
  - bsagdiyev 7y ago
    I didn't realize ICE was rounding them up within our borders, killing the ones unable to work immediately and making the others work to their death.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    There are 2 choices under the law for asylum claims. Either let them go within the country until their court date (hoping they show up) or detain them. The former did not work and was infamous as the "catch and release" policy. Detainment could work in principal but the overflow of the system has caused long wait times, overcrowded facilities and not enough staff to handle the cases. If you suddenly switched back to catch and release we would most likely have a greater influx of people coming in who have no valid claim to asylum and would not show up to their court date. It's a shitty problem all around. And pretending that an overcrowded detention system is a concentration camp is disingenuous at best. If that was the case then California's prison system has been a network of concentration camps for years as they have dealt with constant overcrowding and problems.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  You are defending literal slave labor. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/immigrant-detention-forced-labor-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/immigrant-detention-forced...
  - tomschlick 7y ago
    It looks like that lawsuit is alleging that prisoners only making $1-4 a day is slave labor when to my knowledge that's common in almost all prisons in the US. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ That's not to say its a good practice or policy but nothing there looks like its any different for ICE detainees.
    - dandanqu82 7y ago
      The 13th amendment abolished slavery for everyone except prisoners. The fact that migrants are being treated like prison labor is evidence that they are performing slave labor.
      - bcheung 7y ago
        Slavery is still allowed for jury duty as well. You are forced to work and if you don't go they can throw you in prison and/or fine you.
        admax88q 7y ago
        Oh Hacker News, you never cease to disappoint. "Prisoners are being forced to work for almost no pay, its modern day slavery." "Yeah but think about jury duty, I'm the real slave labour in my middle class lifestyle, having to participate the function of my democracy." I'm sure you think that taxation is theft as well.
  - jariel 7y ago
    ??? Your argument is upside down The vast majority of 'bad labour practices' in the US stem from employment of illegal aliens. Consider if those migrants were 'released from detention' they'd be employed illegally somewhere at sub-legal wages, sub-legal conditions, no unions, no complaints, no healthcare etc. etc.. Companies employ illegal labour largely because they can cheat on a variety of labour practices not because 'they can't find the talent'. This creates a toxic effect whereby those trying to 'play by the rules' can be put out of business by lower margin competitors and are forced into to doing this. There are many jobs that Americans would in fact do if wages and conditions were above bar. The primary driver of illegal migrant is jobs - when the economy booms, many more people enter illegally. When it's rough, there's a downturn. It would be much more simple and humane to simply go after the employment of illegal aliens on the basis of humanitarian grounds alone and there's ample ways to do this. FYI this likely would not affect the migrant of true refugees as much, ergo, you have a border system a little more focused on those in need, and less focused on economic migrants. GitHub is a large business in a fairly politically secular area (software) - they should be able to support anything the US government does aside from possibly weapon systems or military activities. The place for employees to get upset is at the ballot box, protest etc. etc..
- rtpg 7y ago
  But also other company employees are protesting! There have been news stories for multiple employee protests (including Delta refusing to deport some people) Maybe you and GP are not seeing the stories because the outlets you read choose not to cover this
- lordlic 7y ago
  "Kids these days with their wokeness. Back in my day we didn't care about things like human rights, wealth inequality, the plights of underrepresented groups, or destroying the planet. All these damned messy ethics are interfering with business!"
zarkov99 7y ago
But what will your peers at brunch say if you do not show how virtuous you are?
- Ar-Curunir 7y ago
  Caring for the well-being of imprisoned asylum seekers is not virtue-signalling. It says more about your own morals that you think it is.
  - KyeRussell 7y ago
    Yes. It is quite literally taking action, as opposed to just acting as a "signal". Hell, a valuable Github engineer standing up against an ICE contract would probably do more for 'the cause' than their vote would.
  - cglace 7y ago
    How does removing a tool from ICE help improve the conditions of asylum seekers? At most it makes them pay for a different tool and makes the asylum seekers conditions worse. Unintended consequences...
- heyoni 7y ago
  Human rights is so trendy right now. /s
zer00eyz 7y ago
There is an even bigger question here. Is ICE the only thing on GitHub that is morally questionable? I would venture to guess NO. I would venture to guess that all sorts of things on GitHub are used in illicit, illegal, or morally repressible ways.
- KyeRussell 7y ago
  And?
- harryh 7y ago
  Textbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism "There are other bad things on GH" does not refute the idea of protesting against one specific bad thing on GH.
KyeRussell 7y ago
All these people are saying is "I don't want people using things I make for (what I perceive to be) evil". Aside from the compensation, anything you have implied beyond this is just augmentation derived from capitalism and acceptance of the status quo. Saying "I don't like what you are doing with the thing I am producing for you, so I may stop offering you services" is just...basic human communication. I really can't see how there is any more to this? You speak with such absolute authority ("You have to let certain control go after a point."). However, this story (and others like it) are proof that this is untrue. Your assertion is false. Just because somebody is an employee, it does not mean they lose all bargaining power / agency. If you are exchanging goods or services with someone else in a scenario where the power dynamic is not entirely one-sided, there is always room for negotiation. This is all that's happening. Just because you don't care about how your stuff is used, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone.
- dfalfndfk 7y ago
  Well put argument. A lot of posturing in comments in threads like these which try to mislead the reader into thinking that they are looking at the conflict from a higher, more rational, position. I like the way you have framed the argument.
si1entstill 7y ago
I would think that employees at those companies would probably prefer if they weren't doing business with some of those people, but I think it is much more difficult in cases where there is just a good being purchased through retailers (there are intermediary steps). With these kinds of contracts it feels much more akin to a partnership, so I think the feedback makes more sense. Its odd to me that we question why employees would want to have a say in how their company conducts business. Sure, its a choice for the company to make, but saying it is entitled for the employees to speak out just seems insane to me.
- KyeRussell 7y ago
  Yes. Something tells me that if ICE just signed up to Github, nobody would even notice.
semiotagonal 7y ago
> You have to let certain control go after a point. Why? If it's within your power to prevent your work from being put to use in service of something you find immoral, why not attempt to organize with like-minded workers and put a stop to it? If you can force your company to make a choice between a contract and its workforce, you can achieve your goal. There's no reason to let things go. > Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Because they have, or may have, the power to do so. If they can take control of their work, there's no reason not to do so. EDITED TO ADD: > Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? They either don't object, or don't have the power within the company to object effectively.
umeshunni 7y ago
> Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees Because those companies aren't based in the woke-wasteland of San Francisco bay area.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  so edgy. also, quite wrong. microsoft [1], amazon [2], not bay area companies. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/we-did-not-sign-develop-weapons-microsoft-workers-protest-480m-n974761 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/we-did-not-sign-devel... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/business/dealbook/amazon-staff-facial-recognition-protest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/business/dealbook/amazon-...
userbinator 7y ago
This politicisation of tech that's happened at a surprisingly rapid rate since a few years ago is scary, because it threatens to split the industry and maybe even eventually society into a number of opposing factions.
- istjohn 7y ago
  Everything is political.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    A pernicious notion.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    If everything is political, politics is just background noise.
- legostormtroopr 7y ago
  I've said it before, and say it again StackOverflow has taken a huge nosedive sicne the "Time to take a stand"[1] post, where Joel stated openly that if you don't support open borders, you aren't welcome on StackOverflow. [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take...
  - BeetleB 7y ago
    Can you point me to the part where he said that?
harryh 7y ago
I am not a GH employee nor do I speak for them. But I think a fair point of view is that it would be GREAT if the employees of Xerox and Canon and Lenovo and Apple and Ford and the airlines and even the farmers all took the same stance as GH employees. If that actually happened, ICE would cease to be able to function incredibly quickly. Which would be good. This is basically the point of these protests.
- jerkstate 7y ago
  > ICE would cease to be able to function incredibly quickly. Which would be good. If you had said "ICE would be forced to reconsider its inhumane methods which have lead to its terrible reputation" - a lot more people would agree with you. There have been a number of polls done over the past year or two which show that only about 25% support abolishing ICE, the majority oppose. I think almost everyone would agree that they need to do their job with a lot more empathy and humanity, so protests are good, but the goal should be to get them to clean up their act, it would be a mistake (and not supported by the people) to try to get rid of the immigrations and customs enforcement function entirely.
  - harryh 7y ago
    I think the core idea here is: this organization is doing bad things. By not supplying them with goods and services we can stop those bad things from happening. Whether that happens because the organization reforms or because the organization ceases to exists is a secondary concern.
    - CapricornNoble 7y ago
      >>>I think the core idea here is: this organization is doing bad things. By not supplying them with goods and services we can stop those bad things from happening. Government programs NEVER just end, and certainly not do to simple supply disruptions. So they won't STOP doing bad things, they'll just continue to do bad things with even less resources, making the net effects even worse. Eventually you might end up with ICE detention centers that would make a FOB in Iraq look like a palace. All you need is triple-strand concertina wire, some 55-gal drums cut in half (for burning human waste), and a bunch of plywood. Law of unintended consequences....
gigatexal 7y ago
Came to add my two cents and found this. Ditto to what you said.
dcposch 7y ago
> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used > Where do we start? Where do we stop? Often when moral question pops up on HN, the top comment is some variation of > But where do we we draw the line? > I wonder whether we should even try. Counterpoint: cynicism is too easy. Actually giving a shit is harder, it's uncomfortable, it involves compromise. Yes, there's ambiguity. Yes, the line the law draws is very loose. Github can't legally let someone from Iran or North Korea host repos, but just about anything else is legal. If Golden Dawn (the greek fascist party) wanted to use your product, nothing legally prevents you from having them as a customer. This is no excuse to avoid the question. Every person has to decide for themselves the boundaries of who they're willing to work for. If you work for a company, you have a voice in that company's decisions. I think many tech workers underestimate how much power they have. Good engineers are in tremendous demand.
- manfredo 7y ago
  I think you're misrepresenting the argument of people who don't think developers should interfere with the usages of their product. The most compelling arguments I found is that just because we happen to work in a field that lets us exert our influence over society doesn't make our moral sensibilities any better than the rest of society. What us privileged few who work in technology see as using our position of influence for good, many other people may see as a small minority abusing their power to manipulate society for the worse. I think many technology worker do understand the power they have, and make the deliberate decision that refraining from exercising that power is the morally optimal choice.
  - istjohn 7y ago
    It surely takes some mental gymnastics to contort taking a position against supporting an agency that detains children into an abuse of power.
    - Thorentis 7y ago
      Would you rather the agency detained the parents but not the children? Splitting up families is worse than detaining children in my opinion. I'm sure you'd think that detaining anybody is bad, but then what is the point in having borders if you don't enforce them? A law that isn't enforced is not a good law. Or maybe you disagree with borders too? In which case supporting any US government since the creation of the nation has been an "abuse of power" too?
TomMckenny 7y ago
Perhaps you start here and not stop until a government and it's agencies cease abusive practices. The counter question is how much should a person turn a blind eye (and so implicitly endorse) the uses of your product? In this case at least, there was a donation made that would not have happened otherwise.
moonka 7y ago
If part of the reason that employees at companies like Github get equity is to foster a sense of ownership, it's no surprise that employees concern themselves with the larger picture.
Trias11 7y ago
Totally second that. The moment salaried employee start sabotaging his job and putting his views against his job description - it's clearly time for him to reconsider employment at a place that better matches his priorities. Win-win for all, no struggle needed.
- harryh 7y ago
  GH employees don't just get a salary but also equity. So in addition to being employees they are, in fact, owners of the company. It seems perfectly fair for a company owner (even a small one) to voice an opinion about how the company operates.
  - Trias11 7y ago
    I can't really buy a few shares of Apple and get on a high horse trying to steer AAPL revenue strategy to my liking and beliefs. Shareholder I am - but lets get realistic.
    - harryh 7y ago
      Sure you can: https://www.fastcompany.com/40514341/two-activist-apple-shareholders-want-the-company-to-research-the-impact-of-iphones-on-children https://www.fastcompany.com/40514341/two-activist-apple-shar...
      - Trias11 7y ago
        >> ... which together own around $2 billion of Apple stock, have published an open letter urging Apple to think differently about ... Lol, there is a small difference between few shares and few $billion worth of shares. Latter' voice is easier to be heard.
throw_m239339 7y ago
> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Well if a business fostered a culture where it's deemed acceptable to question who the business should or shouldn't be working with, nobody can blame the employees for doing exactly what they were incentivized to do. Plenty of businesses would fired a rebellious employee on the spot without a second thought, or at the very least ask him to resign if he dares question managements on a matter that is neither legally questionable or related to the employee's work conditions, for instance, a group of employees that would be asking management to boycott a certain country. Seems it is a different culture at GitHub,Google or Facebook where apparently questioning management is a virtue. I see nothing wrong with that. It's their own doing.
Legogris 7y ago
GitHub doesn’t sell product in the same way as your examples. They are a service provider. I’d say different dynamics come in with services (hosting content, providing and managing infrastructure, providing support and maybe even consulting) vs products. Also for people who draw comparison with discrimination against individuals: Companies, agencies and organizations aren’t “discriminated” against in the same sense as individuals. I am not aware of any legislation where it’s considered wrongly discriminatory to decline B2B contracts.
travisgriggs 7y ago
There is a difference between a) offering something (for free or gain) ubiquitously to the world at large regardless of any of the myriad ways we choose to distinguish one from another and b) have an arrangement with a specific entity to further their specific cause. I'm not under the impression that gitlab employees are complaining about the first (surely ICE employees and contractors can make use of the myriads of repositories gitlab makes available to the world at large). They are reacting negatively to specific contracts gitlab has with ICE.
caconym_ 7y ago
I don't think there is some "special right" at work here. I think some people who work at Github have decided that they don't like a deal their employer made, and presumably if said employer is trying to "quell employee anger" then enough of their employees must be angry enough to move the needle for their business. This is fine, because employees are not in principle slaves. They do have a right to tell their employers to go fuck themselves "at will", just as the opposite is true. Anybody who takes a stand like this is exercising a privilege that not everybody enjoys, sure, but you're running with that in a suppressive direction (why should Github employees get to be special if not everyone can be special, and by the way (gasp) what if they aren't perfectly logical and fair in their activism?) while I'd go the other way: in an ideal world everybody would enjoy this privilege, and any workers who can take a stand for what they believe in certainly should. The alternative is that corporate leaders alone are responsible for imposing ethics on the markets they play in, and we all know the sorts of decisions such people tend to make.
metacritic12 7y ago
Why not let workers who want to "pressure" GitHub exercise their First Amendment rights and quit? At the same time GitHub should absolutely pay a bit more to get engineers who don't care about this issue. We don't need to censor employees, and at the same time we shouldn't expand the moral opinions of a vocal minority of opinions to be automatically indicative of what GitHub "should" do. What Github "should" do is replace these employees who are exercising their right to quit.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent ... ? Why do you ask question in such a biased frame? Why don't you ask instead: Why don't other companies have moral standards?

tomschlick 7y ago

> Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Why is ICE the only company that they object to? Why do some causes get their favor and not others? Wokeness and the recent trend of trying to cancel anything that doesn't align within a narrow spectrum of progressive viewpoints is a big reason here.

si1entstill 7y ago
I'm sure these people have varying viewpoints across the spectrum on a variety of issues, but this is a direct contract with a client that currently has a large target on it's back. These employees agree they would prefer not to be a partner. Saying all of those who petitioned share a narrow viewpoint is reductive.
KyeRussell 7y ago
"ICE is currently doing some bad things" is a viewpoint shared by a pretty large group of people. Honestly it just sounds like you're projecting.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  ICE is getting raked over the coals in the court of public opinion because they don't have the funding nor the manpower to deal with 100k people coming over the border each month. Many asylum seekers are just exploiting the asylum system with invalid cases as economic migrants to delay the process so they don't get sent back home. All the while congress hasn't done much at all to fix the obvious problems in the law (some of which lead to family separation in detainment), nor do reasonable things like give a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers. Simply saying they are doing bad things is reducing the problems to a soundbite.
  - KyeRussell 7y ago
    K.
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      Glad to see reasonable discussion is still alive and well on HN. /s
      - p1necone 7y ago
        The current US government is blatantly and overtly criminal, it seems reasonable to me to assume anyone arguing in their favor is arguing in bad faith and disengage.
        tomschlick 7y ago
        > it seems reasonable to me to assume anyone arguing in their favor is arguing in bad faith and disengage. I'm not arguing in their favor. I would like nothing more than for us to have strong border control and a functional immigration system that isn't overloaded with false asylum claims so that the real ones can get through. We definitely need to overhaul things like the H1B programs as well. My argument here is that no country's immigration system could handle this type of steady influx of 100k+ people per month [1] exploiting the asylum claims. Many of which only claim such after they illegally cross (yes i know you can technically claim whenever, but that's mighty convenient after crossing illegally). The systems were not built for this kind of thing. Basically under current law you have the choice to detain people until their asylum case is heard or release them on their own recognizance inside the country and hope they return for court. The family separation thing has happened because of a court ruling saying that kids and adults couldn't be detained together because of abuse concerns. If the same thing happened to Canada their systems would be in shambles just like ours. There needs to be a mixture of border security and fixes to immigration law to remedy this problem but none of that can happen while Congress sits on it's hands playing politics. [1] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
dragonwriter 7y ago
The specific concerns may be new, but the general tactics are neither new, nor specific to progressives; in fact, while the labor movement has had some notable successes with it, the general approach has been most extensively deployed in this country by, and still is extensively used by, conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives, against policies, institutions, art, personages, etc., they disapprove of. They call it “cancel culture” when it is their ox getting gored, but it is not as if no one told them what the harvest is like when you sow the wind...
p1necone 7y ago
> "narrow spectrum of progressive viewpoints" Oh fuck off, the way the US government is currently treating asylum seekers and immigrants is horrifying. Only within the bubble of American politics could someone brush complaining about it off like that.
- shaftoe 7y ago
  These aren't people fleeing genocide. These are people leaving Mexico. And they're being put in hotels and buses. It's easy to pretend you're fellow Americans are monsters, but they're not.
  - zer00eyz 7y ago
    Hotels? If you call jail (on a good day) a hotel then I have a bridge to sell you. And yes we put them on busses to get them back because it is cheeper than flying them. > These aren't people fleeing genocide. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/mexico-travel-advisory.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/... You as an American should not go there, but them fleeing here is problematic?
    - tomschlick 7y ago
      Crime != genocide. And asylum cases require specific threats to your life not just "it's not nice there and I want to come to the US". https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-who-32298.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-st...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > These aren't people fleeing genocide. These are people leaving Mexico. No, they are people fleeing violence in Central America through Mexico, in large part. That violence, incidentally, is in substantial part resulting from the US training nonviolent drug war criminals into extremely violent criminals in its original and then deporting then to Central America what they have no substantial roots.
Ar-Curunir 7y ago
This is a garbage opinion. Opposing concentration camps is not a "narrow progressive viewpoint"
- bsagdiyev 7y ago
  I didn't realize ICE was rounding them up within our borders, killing the ones unable to work immediately and making the others work to their death.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tomschlick 7y ago
  There are 2 choices under the law for asylum claims. Either let them go within the country until their court date (hoping they show up) or detain them. The former did not work and was infamous as the "catch and release" policy. Detainment could work in principal but the overflow of the system has caused long wait times, overcrowded facilities and not enough staff to handle the cases. If you suddenly switched back to catch and release we would most likely have a greater influx of people coming in who have no valid claim to asylum and would not show up to their court date. It's a shitty problem all around. And pretending that an overcrowded detention system is a concentration camp is disingenuous at best. If that was the case then California's prison system has been a network of concentration camps for years as they have dealt with constant overcrowding and problems.
chillwaves 7y ago
You are defending literal slave labor. https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/immigrant-detention-forced-labor-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/immigrant-detention-forced...
- tomschlick 7y ago
  It looks like that lawsuit is alleging that prisoners only making $1-4 a day is slave labor when to my knowledge that's common in almost all prisons in the US. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/ That's not to say its a good practice or policy but nothing there looks like its any different for ICE detainees.
  - dandanqu82 7y ago
    The 13th amendment abolished slavery for everyone except prisoners. The fact that migrants are being treated like prison labor is evidence that they are performing slave labor.
    - bcheung 7y ago
      Slavery is still allowed for jury duty as well. You are forced to work and if you don't go they can throw you in prison and/or fine you.
      - admax88q 7y ago
        Oh Hacker News, you never cease to disappoint. "Prisoners are being forced to work for almost no pay, its modern day slavery." "Yeah but think about jury duty, I'm the real slave labour in my middle class lifestyle, having to participate the function of my democracy." I'm sure you think that taxation is theft as well.
- jariel 7y ago
  ??? Your argument is upside down The vast majority of 'bad labour practices' in the US stem from employment of illegal aliens. Consider if those migrants were 'released from detention' they'd be employed illegally somewhere at sub-legal wages, sub-legal conditions, no unions, no complaints, no healthcare etc. etc.. Companies employ illegal labour largely because they can cheat on a variety of labour practices not because 'they can't find the talent'. This creates a toxic effect whereby those trying to 'play by the rules' can be put out of business by lower margin competitors and are forced into to doing this. There are many jobs that Americans would in fact do if wages and conditions were above bar. The primary driver of illegal migrant is jobs - when the economy booms, many more people enter illegally. When it's rough, there's a downturn. It would be much more simple and humane to simply go after the employment of illegal aliens on the basis of humanitarian grounds alone and there's ample ways to do this. FYI this likely would not affect the migrant of true refugees as much, ergo, you have a border system a little more focused on those in need, and less focused on economic migrants. GitHub is a large business in a fairly politically secular area (software) - they should be able to support anything the US government does aside from possibly weapon systems or military activities. The place for employees to get upset is at the ballot box, protest etc. etc..
rtpg 7y ago
But also other company employees are protesting! There have been news stories for multiple employee protests (including Delta refusing to deport some people) Maybe you and GP are not seeing the stories because the outlets you read choose not to cover this
lordlic 7y ago
"Kids these days with their wokeness. Back in my day we didn't care about things like human rights, wealth inequality, the plights of underrepresented groups, or destroying the planet. All these damned messy ethics are interfering with business!"

zarkov99 7y ago

But what will your peers at brunch say if you do not show how virtuous you are?

Ar-Curunir 7y ago
Caring for the well-being of imprisoned asylum seekers is not virtue-signalling. It says more about your own morals that you think it is.
- KyeRussell 7y ago
  Yes. It is quite literally taking action, as opposed to just acting as a "signal". Hell, a valuable Github engineer standing up against an ICE contract would probably do more for 'the cause' than their vote would.
- cglace 7y ago
  How does removing a tool from ICE help improve the conditions of asylum seekers? At most it makes them pay for a different tool and makes the asylum seekers conditions worse. Unintended consequences...
heyoni 7y ago
Human rights is so trendy right now. /s

zer00eyz 7y ago

There is an even bigger question here. Is ICE the only thing on GitHub that is morally questionable? I would venture to guess NO. I would venture to guess that all sorts of things on GitHub are used in illicit, illegal, or morally repressible ways.

KyeRussell 7y ago
And?
harryh 7y ago
Textbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism "There are other bad things on GH" does not refute the idea of protesting against one specific bad thing on GH.

KyeRussell 7y ago

All these people are saying is "I don't want people using things I make for (what I perceive to be) evil". Aside from the compensation, anything you have implied beyond this is just augmentation derived from capitalism and acceptance of the status quo. Saying "I don't like what you are doing with the thing I am producing for you, so I may stop offering you services" is just...basic human communication. I really can't see how there is any more to this? You speak with such absolute authority ("You have to let certain control go after a point."). However, this story (and others like it) are proof that this is untrue. Your assertion is false. Just because somebody is an employee, it does not mean they lose all bargaining power / agency. If you are exchanging goods or services with someone else in a scenario where the power dynamic is not entirely one-sided, there is always room for negotiation. This is all that's happening. Just because you don't care about how your stuff is used, doesn't mean that it applies to everyone.

dfalfndfk 7y ago
Well put argument. A lot of posturing in comments in threads like these which try to mislead the reader into thinking that they are looking at the conflict from a higher, more rational, position. I like the way you have framed the argument.

si1entstill 7y ago

I would think that employees at those companies would probably prefer if they weren't doing business with some of those people, but I think it is much more difficult in cases where there is just a good being purchased through retailers (there are intermediary steps). With these kinds of contracts it feels much more akin to a partnership, so I think the feedback makes more sense. Its odd to me that we question why employees would want to have a say in how their company conducts business. Sure, its a choice for the company to make, but saying it is entitled for the employees to speak out just seems insane to me.

KyeRussell 7y ago
Yes. Something tells me that if ICE just signed up to Github, nobody would even notice.

semiotagonal 7y ago

> You have to let certain control go after a point. Why? If it's within your power to prevent your work from being put to use in service of something you find immoral, why not attempt to organize with like-minded workers and put a stop to it? If you can force your company to make a choice between a contract and its workforce, you can achieve your goal. There's no reason to let things go. > Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent for their product to be used in a setting they might object to? Because they have, or may have, the power to do so. If they can take control of their work, there's no reason not to do so. EDITED TO ADD: > Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees? They either don't object, or don't have the power within the company to object effectively.

umeshunni 7y ago

> Why don't the employees at all these other companies object like Github employees Because those companies aren't based in the woke-wasteland of San Francisco bay area.

V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
so edgy. also, quite wrong. microsoft [1], amazon [2], not bay area companies. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/we-did-not-sign-develop-weapons-microsoft-workers-protest-480m-n974761 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/we-did-not-sign-devel... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/business/dealbook/amazon-staff-facial-recognition-protest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/business/dealbook/amazon-...

userbinator 7y ago

This politicisation of tech that's happened at a surprisingly rapid rate since a few years ago is scary, because it threatens to split the industry and maybe even eventually society into a number of opposing factions.

istjohn 7y ago
Everything is political.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  A pernicious notion.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  If everything is political, politics is just background noise.
legostormtroopr 7y ago
I've said it before, and say it again StackOverflow has taken a huge nosedive sicne the "Time to take a stand"[1] post, where Joel stated openly that if you don't support open borders, you aren't welcome on StackOverflow. [1]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take-a-stand https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/342440/time-to-take...
- BeetleB 7y ago
  Can you point me to the part where he said that?

harryh 7y ago

I am not a GH employee nor do I speak for them. But I think a fair point of view is that it would be GREAT if the employees of Xerox and Canon and Lenovo and Apple and Ford and the airlines and even the farmers all took the same stance as GH employees. If that actually happened, ICE would cease to be able to function incredibly quickly. Which would be good. This is basically the point of these protests.

jerkstate 7y ago
> ICE would cease to be able to function incredibly quickly. Which would be good. If you had said "ICE would be forced to reconsider its inhumane methods which have lead to its terrible reputation" - a lot more people would agree with you. There have been a number of polls done over the past year or two which show that only about 25% support abolishing ICE, the majority oppose. I think almost everyone would agree that they need to do their job with a lot more empathy and humanity, so protests are good, but the goal should be to get them to clean up their act, it would be a mistake (and not supported by the people) to try to get rid of the immigrations and customs enforcement function entirely.
- harryh 7y ago
  I think the core idea here is: this organization is doing bad things. By not supplying them with goods and services we can stop those bad things from happening. Whether that happens because the organization reforms or because the organization ceases to exists is a secondary concern.
  - CapricornNoble 7y ago
    >>>I think the core idea here is: this organization is doing bad things. By not supplying them with goods and services we can stop those bad things from happening. Government programs NEVER just end, and certainly not do to simple supply disruptions. So they won't STOP doing bad things, they'll just continue to do bad things with even less resources, making the net effects even worse. Eventually you might end up with ICE detention centers that would make a FOB in Iraq look like a palace. All you need is triple-strand concertina wire, some 55-gal drums cut in half (for burning human waste), and a bunch of plywood. Law of unintended consequences....

gigatexal 7y ago

Came to add my two cents and found this. Ditto to what you said.

dcposch 7y ago

> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used > Where do we start? Where do we stop? Often when moral question pops up on HN, the top comment is some variation of > But where do we we draw the line? > I wonder whether we should even try. Counterpoint: cynicism is too easy. Actually giving a shit is harder, it's uncomfortable, it involves compromise. Yes, there's ambiguity. Yes, the line the law draws is very loose. Github can't legally let someone from Iran or North Korea host repos, but just about anything else is legal. If Golden Dawn (the greek fascist party) wanted to use your product, nothing legally prevents you from having them as a customer. This is no excuse to avoid the question. Every person has to decide for themselves the boundaries of who they're willing to work for. If you work for a company, you have a voice in that company's decisions. I think many tech workers underestimate how much power they have. Good engineers are in tremendous demand.

manfredo 7y ago
I think you're misrepresenting the argument of people who don't think developers should interfere with the usages of their product. The most compelling arguments I found is that just because we happen to work in a field that lets us exert our influence over society doesn't make our moral sensibilities any better than the rest of society. What us privileged few who work in technology see as using our position of influence for good, many other people may see as a small minority abusing their power to manipulate society for the worse. I think many technology worker do understand the power they have, and make the deliberate decision that refraining from exercising that power is the morally optimal choice.
- istjohn 7y ago
  It surely takes some mental gymnastics to contort taking a position against supporting an agency that detains children into an abuse of power.
  - Thorentis 7y ago
    Would you rather the agency detained the parents but not the children? Splitting up families is worse than detaining children in my opinion. I'm sure you'd think that detaining anybody is bad, but then what is the point in having borders if you don't enforce them? A law that isn't enforced is not a good law. Or maybe you disagree with borders too? In which case supporting any US government since the creation of the nation has been an "abuse of power" too?

TomMckenny 7y ago

Perhaps you start here and not stop until a government and it's agencies cease abusive practices. The counter question is how much should a person turn a blind eye (and so implicitly endorse) the uses of your product? In this case at least, there was a donation made that would not have happened otherwise.

moonka 7y ago

If part of the reason that employees at companies like Github get equity is to foster a sense of ownership, it's no surprise that employees concern themselves with the larger picture.

Trias11 7y ago

Totally second that. The moment salaried employee start sabotaging his job and putting his views against his job description - it's clearly time for him to reconsider employment at a place that better matches his priorities. Win-win for all, no struggle needed.

harryh 7y ago
GH employees don't just get a salary but also equity. So in addition to being employees they are, in fact, owners of the company. It seems perfectly fair for a company owner (even a small one) to voice an opinion about how the company operates.
- Trias11 7y ago
  I can't really buy a few shares of Apple and get on a high horse trying to steer AAPL revenue strategy to my liking and beliefs. Shareholder I am - but lets get realistic.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Sure you can: https://www.fastcompany.com/40514341/two-activist-apple-shareholders-want-the-company-to-research-the-impact-of-iphones-on-children https://www.fastcompany.com/40514341/two-activist-apple-shar...
    - Trias11 7y ago
      >> ... which together own around $2 billion of Apple stock, have published an open letter urging Apple to think differently about ... Lol, there is a small difference between few shares and few $billion worth of shares. Latter' voice is easier to be heard.

throw_m239339 7y ago

> I question how much an employee should concern him/herself with how a product is used once it's created. You have to let certain control go after a point. Or if your product is open to everyone, you'll have to live with the fact that people may use it in ways you disagree with. Well if a business fostered a culture where it's deemed acceptable to question who the business should or shouldn't be working with, nobody can blame the employees for doing exactly what they were incentivized to do. Plenty of businesses would fired a rebellious employee on the spot without a second thought, or at the very least ask him to resign if he dares question managements on a matter that is neither legally questionable or related to the employee's work conditions, for instance, a group of employees that would be asking management to boycott a certain country. Seems it is a different culture at GitHub,Google or Facebook where apparently questioning management is a virtue. I see nothing wrong with that. It's their own doing.

Legogris 7y ago

GitHub doesn’t sell product in the same way as your examples. They are a service provider. I’d say different dynamics come in with services (hosting content, providing and managing infrastructure, providing support and maybe even consulting) vs products. Also for people who draw comparison with discrimination against individuals: Companies, agencies and organizations aren’t “discriminated” against in the same sense as individuals. I am not aware of any legislation where it’s considered wrongly discriminatory to decline B2B contracts.

travisgriggs 7y ago

There is a difference between a) offering something (for free or gain) ubiquitously to the world at large regardless of any of the myriad ways we choose to distinguish one from another and b) have an arrangement with a specific entity to further their specific cause. I'm not under the impression that gitlab employees are complaining about the first (surely ICE employees and contractors can make use of the myriads of repositories gitlab makes available to the world at large). They are reacting negatively to specific contracts gitlab has with ICE.

caconym_ 7y ago

I don't think there is some "special right" at work here. I think some people who work at Github have decided that they don't like a deal their employer made, and presumably if said employer is trying to "quell employee anger" then enough of their employees must be angry enough to move the needle for their business. This is fine, because employees are not in principle slaves. They do have a right to tell their employers to go fuck themselves "at will", just as the opposite is true. Anybody who takes a stand like this is exercising a privilege that not everybody enjoys, sure, but you're running with that in a suppressive direction (why should Github employees get to be special if not everyone can be special, and by the way (gasp) what if they aren't perfectly logical and fair in their activism?) while I'd go the other way: in an ideal world everybody would enjoy this privilege, and any workers who can take a stand for what they believe in certainly should. The alternative is that corporate leaders alone are responsible for imposing ethics on the markets they play in, and we all know the sorts of decisions such people tend to make.

metacritic12 7y ago

Why not let workers who want to "pressure" GitHub exercise their First Amendment rights and quit? At the same time GitHub should absolutely pay a bit more to get engineers who don't care about this issue. We don't need to censor employees, and at the same time we shouldn't expand the moral opinions of a vocal minority of opinions to be automatically indicative of what GitHub "should" do. What Github "should" do is replace these employees who are exercising their right to quit.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

> Why do Github employees get a special right to withhold consent ... ? Why do you ask question in such a biased frame? Why don't you ask instead: Why don't other companies have moral standards?